12mo ago

Why Republicans are fighting the basic-income programs many cities and states are adopting: 'Is money a birthright now?'

www.businessinsider.com Why Republicans are fighting the basic-income programs many cities and states are adopting: 'Is money a birthright now?'

Republican lawmakers from five states are seeking to ban guaranteed basic-income programs, citing costs for taxpayers.

politics @lemmy.world

tintory @lemm.ee

12mo ago

Why Republicans are fighting the basic-income programs many cities and states are adopting: 'Is money a birthright now?'

www.businessinsider.com /guaranteed-basic-income-ban-ubi-arizona-texas-houston-homelessness-poverty-2024-2

405 117

46 comments

'Is money a birthright now?'
If it's not, then logically a 100% inheritance tax must be imposed. After all, nobody is entitled to money just for being born, right?
- In that case, I would burn all my money rather than pay it in taxes before I died. Just put every single penny you have into Bitcoin or something and then purposely delete the private keys.
  
  Why not donate everything to charities you support instead?
  
  In the long run, nearly the same effect as 100% inheritance tax anyways.
  The government won't know the cash has been removed from the economy, but it'll have been removed all the same.

money isn't a birthright, but food, water, shelter, clothes, and healthcare are. if we can't be given those, we should at least be given the money to get them
- Republicans don't think those are birthrights either, because they don't care about anyone after they've been born. They wouldn't care about foetuses either if they had to be fed and housed.
  
  They don't care about anyone before they were born. Abortion is just a hot topic for them to parade around to get votes, and nowadays, that strategy is backfiring so much that they try to ignore it as much as possible.
  
  Sure, but then republicans are well into the territory of “I don’t like the facts”. They need to be told to work on trying to un-sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (from 1948?) before they can make what they consider “progress” in their minds.
  from the article:
  "I never thought we would be going down the socialist road," Gillette told BI. "I spent 35 years in the Army fighting communism, fighting terrorism. Now we're slipping. The left is pushing us toward the socialist program."
  LOL.. I read that as: “help! We’re slipping past the 1940s because of the commies and socialists!”
- This is the right answer. Next can we get rid of money altogether?
- I would love to see this backfire. If they ban min. incomes whilst being a human rights signatory, it means the state must buy food, shelter, and clothes, which means that portion of commerce would be outside of their “capitalist utopia” as the state would decide where to buy Bob’s shoes, or perhaps even make Bob a pair of shoes. It can (and should) backfire spectacularly for them.
  
  You say this like they have any decency or shame. They will continue to talk out of one side of their mouths about being a party of the common man while letting people who can't "afford to live" continue to die quietly in the gutters.
  
  the state must buy
  Who's going to make it do that?

I don't care what the science says! I don't care about the suffering of others! This offends my capitalist sensibilities that I have never questioned and I'm not about to start thinking too hard about it now just because some hippy libs want to sneak communism in the back door!
I have zero respect for this world view and hope we are able to simply bulldoze it with unstoppable momentum.
- Nicely put. I just cannot tell if that is how you feel or your just channeling.
  For me, I am divided. On one hand people do nothing unless motivated and needing basic necessities is a powerful motivator. On the other, I am curious as to the most cost effective approach. Plus I would much rather spend money on people getting along then police and armies.
  Edit: Just thinking, maybe call me a libertarian socialist. Maybe that is why I am always confused.
  
  people do nothing unless motivated
  this is an assumption worth challenging. the evidence suggests, in fact, that people are almost always doing things!
  
  I'm making fun of it. I am also a libertarian socialist or something.

I'm expecting Republicans to propose opening debtors prisons where you have to work for free to pay off debts.
- Good thing none of them read history.
- I mean, there's one case of this in the US already - child support. It's the only debt you can be jailed for failing to pay.

This is why I’m so disgusted every time someone says “republicans and democrats are basically the same”, which I most often hear from Europeans.
- I guess only in the sense that both parties are right wing? One is just extreme in that direction?

Can't have people given an option to not take exploitive jobs just to eat

It is in the age of AI and Automation.

Social darwinism and galtonism.

I suggest you go to your local library and check out, or request via inter library loan - William Connolly - Capitalism and Christianity American Style. It builds on Max Webers work on the early Puritan influence into economics (The Protestant Work Ethic). Connolly incorporates much of his contemporary philosophy to try and explain the bootstrap mentality, cruelty politics, and the modern religious nationalist movement. Plus the book cover is metal.

Are republicans stupid or disingenuous? It's so hard to tell sometimes; it certainly seems like the ones peddling the lies have themselves been sucked into believing them.

Because that is what they paid to do?

I mean, they seem to be against anything that would affect American citizens positively.

46 comments